[Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au
Mon Jun 11 15:57:13 UTC 2018

From: Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2018 01:44
To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes



You are seriously telling me that if you have two ways that share a node, you are unable to figure out what that node is without having it explicitly listed as a totally redundant member of the relation?

No, we are all quite capable of figuring that out. The issue is having to hardwire semantics for one tag out of 1000s and while there are a lots of special cases, mainly when reversing ways, this would be a first for splitting (and merging likely too).   



Talking about two different things here.


You are talking about transition tags on ways. Fine. As long as editors provide an easy way to create, see and change transition information in relations without having to manually create these relations, there is no need for transition tags on ways. Their whole purpose was to make possible for mappers to tag this without going crazy (which they are going to if you disallow the tags on the ways without providing real editor support that hides away the complexity of the relations).



Bryan says he is unable to handle a type=transition relation with only a from and to way as member, without a via node member.



I’m saying that different from turn restrictions, transitions can’t have ways as vias or multiple vias. So the rule is simply: for a transition relation to be valid, the from and to way need to have single node that’s shared between them. That node is always the via node. There is no need to explicitly specify it in the relation. It’s already given by the from and to ways.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180612/25915073/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list